Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!hayes.ims.alaska.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Modifying the NANP? (was: What Happens When 800 Fills Up)
Message-ID: <14636@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 12 Nov 90 16:40:12 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA
Lines: 55
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 816, Message 2 of 9


In article <14554@accuvax.nwu.edu>, JAJZ801@calstate.bitnet writes:

>I think the problem posed by this question goes beyond the issue of
>just 800 numbers:

>  The escalating splitting of municipalities into multiple area codes,
>the proliferation of faxs and cellular phones that will exacerbate
>this suggest that the once adequate phone numbering system is getting
>out of hand and is unequal to the load of modern telecommunications
>possibilities. The resulting confusion of phone numbers versus
>geographical areas occasioned by the splitting and the uncertainty of
>charges is just once manifestation of it.

>  What are the telephone companies, research institutions, regulatory
>agencies, or anyone else doing to address this. To what extent may
>ISDN provide some solutions to this (I can think of a few).

Jeff points out a potentially serious problem.  The North American
Numbering Plan is very expandable and flexible, but the expansion is
occuring more rapidly than (I suspect) was originally foreseen, and
it's generating a higher pain level than the public seems happy with.

Right now the plan says that NPAs are split when they get crowded.
Thus West LA gets 310, Bronx gets 908, etc.  Soon (after 1995) we'll
be able to have NPA codes like 260, 420, etc.; these REQUIRE strict 1+
dialing rules to avoid ambiguity.  (Some small NPAs have no NN0 codes,
which gives them a little slack.)

A possible solution, which to the best of my knowledge has not been
seriously entertained by Bellcore (yet), is to use "overlay" NPAs.
This is hinted at by 908, which gets Bronx plus Manhattan's cellular
phones.  An overlay NPA is geographically coterminous with another
code, but comes from the NNX space (post-1995, of course).

Residential and POTS numbers can be allocated from the remaining
"traditional" pool; these aren't the ones causing the exhaustion.
Business can pay extra for numbers in the traditional NPA, but default
DID rates get you overlay numbers, which are also used for cellular,
PBX trunks (beyond the listed one?), fax machines, data services, etc.

Then we can stop splitting NPAs.  Existing numbers remain intact, in
general, but growth gets new numbers.  The last few NYX codes (i.e.,
710, 810, 909, 410) can be reserved for areas that really do need to
split, after overlays reduce demand for current-NPA numbers.

I wonder if the idea will sell.  (The NANP discussion at ANSI T1S1
ended last year, due to lack of consensus, so I can't bring it up
there.)


Fred R. Goldstein              Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA
goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com   voice: +1 508 486 7388
 Do you think anyone else on the planet would share my opinions, let
 alone a multi-billion dollar corporation?